wow... marky... what a pathetic... distorted rant...

bestiality? really, marky... are you that dumb??? apparently

You must really love your dog

Just another example of the sickness this country is infested with.

ya'll try'n to get my goat...here in backwoods arkansas...we don't cotton to them ideas...

Markwonder: The Bible also says that it's an obamanation too!

Ah, I see the Christian cultists are feeding their bible-warped venomous hatred in a viscous circle again.

SO loving and wonderful of you all.

You REALLY do your Jesus justice with so much love for your fellow man.

I especially love the judgementalism. So nice that you feel the need to step in and help God. Im sure she appreciates it. LOL

Given the posts above, seems you're all overdue for some well-deserved smiting by now.

I pray God forgive America for her sins and I pray Americans will turn back to the Living God, the Creator of all and fall on their faces before Him asking forgiveness of their sins.

I am so sad to say that I believe (MY opinion) God has taken his hand of blessing and protection off of America.

We can see the ugly that will continue to grow when we see remarks like beastiality being acceptable or the next avenue. This is beyond. God forgive us!

markwonder: This is what you had to say about opposite sex marriages:

"Marriage is a lot like playing cards: You start out giving a heart and a diamond... ...and end up wishing for a club and a spade."

Your views on marriage are as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

I say congradulations to the new married couple in Maine. Love is great and I will celebrate all weddings.

In my area, City Hall isn't open on Saturday, let alone open up during off hours for anyone. Maybe I missed it? I would be aggravated if the city spent extra monies to go out of their way to accomodate this newly enacted law.

WHOIS- I am. Less than 6 months ago the city of Portland cut teachers, services and yes, even the hours of many municipal offices. I have no agenda against or for gay marriage...Really don't care...To each his own.

But I was under the impression that what we voted on was for equality???
Heterosexual couples were NOT allowed to obtain marriage licenses last evening, they will have to wait until Monday...

To all of you who are so opposed to gay marriage, I think I have a solution. My solution involves no new laws, no taxes, no new regulations, no governmental action at any level. So listen up people -- this is your answer ---

• If you're against gay marriage --- don't marry a gay person.

In my area, City Hall isn't open on Saturday, let alone open up during off hours for anyone. Maybe I missed it? I would be aggravated if the city spent extra monies to go out of their way to accomodate this newly enacted law.

I don't know about Maine, but when marriage equality took effect in New York, personnel volunteered their time to staff the offices for those very few extra hours. Until you know the situation in Maine, stop griping about it.

Barry... Notice the "Maybe I missed it? and the phrase "I would be... " He/She isn't gripping about anything...

But I am.... And I do know the situation here in my own city. Money in Portland (like everywhere) is tight..The staff was not volunteers, nor where the police that set up and manned the portable "barricades/fences" to screen only those who were eligible to enter...

FYI...You had to meet certain conditions (per the local news)...One of the partners had to be from the city of Portland OR both from out of state AND you had to be a same sex couple... If you were a heterosexual coupleyou were not let in...

Again, does this sound like the equality we voted for?????

once again if you want people to really get "on board" with this gay wedding thing do not use pictures of old queens touching each other.

What we should have is contractual unions. The government should not be involved with marriage at all, the rights they seek has nothing to do with acceptance, it is a cohabitation issue. In honesty it can be claimed by a plethora of personal living arrangements. It would be best sorted out by attorneys at law schooled in what can be construed as an acceptable arrangement in society. P.S. There is more involved than just gay rights when there is open ended definition of bonding agreements.

I forgot to mention that gays,muslims,animal sex etc. are the least of our problems these days.

plain bob

ya'll try'n to get my goat...here in backwoods arkansas...we don't cotton to them ideas...

My 2 gays cousins live in the backwoods near Searcy. One of them once showed me evidence in photos from an abandoned farm house near Newport of 2 old ladies who had been together since the early 1920s's. I personally know native-born gays from a dozen counties in Arkansas.

You need to get out and about a bit more.

What a cute couple those hairy fat men make!

just my thought. I don't think matching t shirts are a good idea in anyone's marriage.

If you're against gay marriage --- don't marry a gay person.

Perfect! Absolutely Perfect...

Welcome to the 21st century.

It doesn't matter what century we're in, AID/HIV is on a shocking rise because of homosexuality and not because of anything else. According to the CDC, Men Sleeping With Men study shows AIDS/HIV is up 61% and according the link below 20% don't even know they have it and so spread it to other partners. Homosexuals will eventually kill
themselves off because this disease has no cure and because a condom does not stop the HIV virus.

Homosexuality is a choice that kills. Heterosexual marriage is a choice that is good for all.

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/men/sex/aids-by-the-numbers

I think it's sick, but that's my right. Just like it's their's to do and think the way they want, and to all the "Christians" stop spouting your "punishment" crap all you're doing is making people hate you more. (John 3:17)

If some of you would spend more time worrying about your own marriages than the one in this story, maybe the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Why the hell do you care what some one else is doing? Worry about your own life and move on... lol

Ignorance is bliss they say....

Oh Goody! Goody! Goody! Goody! Goody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't really care what they're doing, Ray. I just don't want it shoved in my face and told that I have to approve of it. Bottom line: if you all would just go about your gay business and STFU about it, we'd all get along better!

If men and women would take their vows a lot more seriously the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

The younger generation is quite perplexed by the fear some have concerning homosexuality. My teen daughter says she simply doesn't get why there are people who treat other human beings so badly - people they don't even know but hold in such contempt. She recently told me, "The heart determines love, not society." I'm proud of her. In the near future, the issues faced by the LGBT community will be history. I will be glad when that day comes.

I forgot to wish the happy couple a lovely life. Now I'm going to enjoy my new Three Days Grace CD - it rocks.

spider-737231 - I just don't want it shoved in my face and told that I have to approve of it.

I don't think anyone asked for your approval, just as your bigot-marriage doesn't require my approval.

Bottom line: if you all would just go about your gay business and STFU about it, we'd all get along better!

You bigots have only yourselves to blame for that, so you can quit your whining. If you didn't try to suppress the legal rights of gays in the first place this would never have been an issue.

Nobody is throwing interracial marriage in your face and telling you you have to approve of it, Spider. You just have to accept it, that's all.

musician by night

Maine must be so proud. Lots of newlyweds trying to make butt babies and kick starting their v twin vibrators. I say that if this is what it comes to, all special benefits that apply to married people should end, and I am one of them. Now, I wonder how long it will be before some court upholds the marriage between 3 or more people on the same constitutional grounds. All I can say, is where is a shooter when you need one ?

Your narrow-minded, hateful rant gives musicians a bad name. Hell, it's bad enough to give night a bad name. Who are you and why are you the way you are?

I don't care what you are or who you are. I am just glad that there are not many people like you. You have made an incorrect assumption about me, but that doesn't bother me. I believe in granting people equal rights even when I am not in the group that people like you discriminate against. That makes me a better human being than you, but almost anyone is better than you.

it does seem a little queer...

Matt, let it go already. Your Bible also forbids poly/cotton shirts and eating shrimp. I'm glad you are (happily) married. But your argument that there is too much love in the world just isn't winning the day. Move on to new territory, like winning the right to vote for fetuses or something.

Matt, it sounds like you're a member of a bigoted cult like the SBC or Mormons, and that you've confused a legal contract with an irrelevant religious rite.

Truly, if man and a man adopt(not procreate) a child, and they decide to get a divorce, who is the father or the mother? I'm confused... Also, if a woman becomes artificially insemenated by a different person(definitely not her partner(notice I didn't say wife or husband)), who is the nurturer and who is the bread winner? Confusing? I do not think I am the only one, for I think the child most of all is subjected to emotional confusion, without having a choice. Lets talk equality gay rights people, for where are the rights of the children you forcebly introduce into your union? Although slow to anger, but when you begin to emotionally confuse and abuse the youth, there will surely be consequences?!!

I'm confused...

So it would appear. You could've stopped there.

Wife/husband roles are irrelevant and kids raised by gays or lesbians aren't confused about it at all.

Wife/husband roles are irrelevant

Your perspection of irrelavance, is a contrived idea, to coerce the negation of the veritable purposes of procreation. Therefore, your awareness of my uncertainty of the emotional upheavel of our youth escapes your scope. Again, I reafirm my initial notion, that there will be consequences derived from the manipulation of our youth.

What's contrived, Rob, is sexual roles and their import to the stability of a culture or society according to your baseless conjecture.

RobGC

A single mother raising a child because dear ole daddy left because he didn't want the burden and refuses to see his child.. Is the single mother, the mother or the father, or how about both.. So it's not okay to raise a child if you are two men or two women, but it's okay to raise a child if you are a single parent.. But bigot minds think that it's all a shame, she should have aborted that child when daddy or mommy left, right even if the child is 2-4-7-11 doesn't matter only a mommy and a daddy together can raise a child, RIGHT????

Rob,

Your attempt at using $5.00 words to make you sound smarter didn't work. Your assumption that all families are traditional nuclear families only highlights your ignorance and inability to find a logical conclusion based on any empirical data to support your claim. Honest assimilation of data and recognition of variable into your thin argument highlights the mental inability to integrate concepts and ideas outside the scope of your own limited world views. Children have been adapting to non traditional family roles for centuries and have come across emotionally and mentally stable, even when a grandparent or other family member must do the rearing in cases of parental passing or inability to raise the child in a stable environment. I can use big words too. I give them to you free of charge.

Calico: that was exactly my situation-you hit the nail on the head, only difference being that I had 5 children to raise on my own. I now get mother's day AND father's day cards from some of the kids. And each child was HIS idea. I'm proud to say I know a few G/L people and I can't think of any one of them that would abandon and refusde to support their child/ren. Their kids-loved, very well adjusted and very happy, and if their peers' parents raised them right they would not be judgemental or harrassing children with two same-sex parents. From reading these posts, it seems most of the people being judgemental and hateful are the so-called "christians". Definitely not christian-like. Hypocrites. Aren't christians supposed to love everybody the same? Congrats to all the newlyweds up in Maine!

"Ban gay marriage!!! This is totally out of sync with the Holy Bible. This needs to be stopped. I'm married and have a wife and 8 year old son."

Hey Matt -- you're married and have an 8 year old son. So what??? I was married 41 years when my wife died and I have two adult daughters and 4 grand-children. None of that has anything to do with gay marriage. I didn't leave my wife to run off with a guy and I assure you if I ever get married again it won't be to a guy. You see Matt, it's like this --- gay marriage has NO affect on me, you or anyone other than the gay couple who are married. So live your life and stop worrying about and telling others how to live theirs.

Truly, if man and a man adopt(not procreate) a child, and they decide to get a divorce, who is the father or the mother? I'm confused...

@RobGC ... I'm sorry that you're confused. I know four- and five-year old children of same-sex couples who are not confused. Perhaps they'd be willing to explain it to you.

What confuses me is your insistence on labeling one person "father" and one "mother." What makes you think that the divorce courts care? They don't. You have two parents, and the courts will make custodial decisions based on what is best for the children. The sex of the parents is irrevelant.

Your perspection of irrelavance, is a contrived idea, to coerce the negation of the veritable purposes of procreation.

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. One may be married without procreating, just as one may procreate without being married.

RobGC: Maybe this will help you with your confusion or misinformation regarding same sex couples as parents and their screwing up kids minds. Actually, studies find that children of SS couples are more accepting of others (read less bigoted). Maybe that is what you are concerned about, not enough hate and discrimination will be taught to the next generation. There are lot's of studies out there, here's a snippet of one I read: "Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures." Though if you are Republican you will not agree with the "science", because ALL science is now liberal and evil, right? It also says that often SS couples are more engaged in their children's lives to ensure that their kids are well adjusted and let's face it, they tend to have more passion around parenting since they usually have to go through so much to become parents.

Pedophiles are sexually evil and so are gay's. They all use sex for twisted, impure, and for their own selfish satisfactions. Sex is a blessing for a Man and Woman, to take their love for one another to a higher level, thus proliferating and nurturing their progeny and legacy. Which if respectfully, and carefully done advances our species, and promulgates higher intelligence. Sexual deviation from its true purpose shoulders factual consequences, for it inherently spring boards variance into other sexual perversions and depravities. To beckon for acquiescence of same sex unions, is an invitation for acceptence of additional sexual devergencies.

The majority of men and women residing on this delicate planet called Earth, attest to the lasting emotional damage caused by sexual degradation. I suggest you ask the people of India at this point and time, about what they think of sexual defilers? Why stop at that, I challenge you to speak to someone that was abused by depraved individuals, or even the depraved individual himself, and ascertain for yourself the source of their afflictions. Then underpin your assumed piece of evidence, that must be factually based by just proclaiming them to be. As for myself, I have historical evidence to prove vehemently the sexual, and emotional upheaval caused by deviation.

For Heartland. Those results aren't surprising. Such things as mental health, social functioning, school performance, etc. are usually tied to the time a parent puts into actually parenting. With a SS couple, the children are often well planned. Very hard to have an accidental pregnancy. If only having any children was as difficult as that... It might solve many of the parenting problems that exist today.

RobGC,

From your way of thinking, all men must be evil. Men rape women. So, men must be evil. Cut and dry. Ridiculous, huh? Here is the basic problem of your "research" and personal opinion, which you are entitled to. Simply because you say it's so does not make it a fact. Using your own examples means that any one group who meets your definition of deviancy must mean they are the downfall of humanity. When you look at it from such black and white, no wonder you fear the world around you. Might I suggest that very few things are actually black and white. Would you like an example?

In recent history, given the age of the world, the average life span of a male was 30 years of age. At the age of 13, a boy was a man and was getting married and making children. To do that now means they would be pedophiles. One must use historical context to make such evaluations and you aren't so big on using historical and cultural relevance to make your statements. What is acceptable now was not acceptable then. So if this is true, then are there things that are acceptable today that wont be acceptable in the future? Social evolution has not caused damage to the planet. The Black Death didn't stop humanity from getting to this point. Volcanos, disease, space, and humanity themselves have not stopped or hindered population. Your conclusions are flawed and misguided.

RobGC, you and others like you really are poster children for condom usage.

Please everyone like RobGC use a condom and stop the spread of ignorance and bigotry.

Comparing pedophilia -- which is about sexual attraction to minors, who cannot legally consent to any sexual relationships -- to homosexuality -- which involves consenting adults, and is perfectly legal and normal -- is what is evil, Rob. It only proves that you have lost the argument from the beginning, because you have no credibility whatsoever, nor is your opinion based on any kind of fact or reality.

They all use sex for twisted, impure, and for their own selfish satisfactions.

Really? And heterosexuals do not?

Which if respectfully, and carefully done advances our species, and promulgates higher intelligence.

So "careful" sex advances our species? And it's too bad your parents could not "promulgate higher intelligence".

Sexual deviation from its true purpose shoulders factual consequences, for it inherently spring boards variance into other sexual perversions and depravities.

And now you posit that having sex for any reason other than procreation is "deviant"? What is THAT piece of nonsense based on?

You have tried to use lofty language to make your claims, yet bull@!$%# cannot be disguised -- the stench still emanates, no matter how it is "dressed up".

Heh, SOME lofty language. The rest of the sentences were such Shakespearean masterpieces as "pedophiles are sexually evil and so are gay's." This suggests that he copied someone else's "lofty language," and plagiarism is just another form of dishonesty.

Toasty,

It's a common tactic in debate. When you have a weak argument, you embellish it with flowery words. Much like putting a hat on a turd, it's still a turd. But because it sounds authoritative, it must be true, no? No matter how you dice it, people like Rob will look for any and all examples or research, no matter how poor the examples or studies, to justify their point. Also, when looking at cultural and historical relevance to ones argument, his argument becomes very thin and unsupported. Remember their motto is this: "Distract. Embellish. Discredit." But most importantly, they don't want the discussion to stay on track or in focus because the actual subject matter is not something a reasonable human being would dispute. The only way he, and people like him, can dispute this is by reaching for the ridiculous to substantiate their opinion.

It's funny that you seem to know so much about having sex dolls made of one's child or children, YouCan't/Jeezus, and so many other things about child pornography.

It's also funny that you think you know a lot about homosexuals and homosexuality.

It's also funny that you keep re-registering with different variations of the same screen names, so that you can keep ranting about your fixation.

Is your fixation something we want to encourage?

Time to open that closet door.

I have discovered it to be obtuse, to propose an intellectual reasoning, as to why our society is on the decline. For we are all witnsses through the enormous media engine. Consequently, trying to have an intellectual discussion with those, that only have the disposition to idiolectually disgorge there odium, for those that have a counter view of their sexual deviancy. It is my perspection and others like me, who beleive in practicing sexuality for its intended purposes. There were a few of you that proved my point for me, that sexual degradation is a enormous symptom of the plague that inflicts our society. Hence, there are those that bolster sexual depravity as a natural occurance, which gives way to an animalistic outlook, contrary to the intelligent good sense of a human's aptitude for moral purposing.

Rob,

You could have said that in way, way, less syllables. I suggest you study Hemmingway.

Matt,

No one gives a @!$%# about your Bible.

Rob, your attempts to seem intelligent are laughable, at best -- obviously you sit with a dictionary at your side to interject words which you obviously do not comprehend. Furthermore, your might gain perhaps an ounce of credibility and respect for your point of view if you would make an effort to at least spell even the simpler words correctly, or to use the correct form of the words.

Okay Erin, your mockery of my spelling is inconsequential to the discussion. I am going to use uncomplicated words so that you may understand a different outllook more clearly.

I think same sex marriage is wrong, because it debases the actual purpose of MARRIAGE. It is egotistical and narrow minded to enter into the vow, without understanding its original construction. and it is not a simple small minded vow that should be taken lightly. I understand gay people are not entering into the union not with the intent to berate its sanctity. Therefore I do believe they do not know its true purpose, and its historical symbolism, thus gay sexual marriage is deviating from its founding objective. Marriage was not established by gay people, because it was instituted by hetrosexual men and women to symbolize their love and legacy for their descendants. Now for the gays with their inability to procreate without the assitence of donors and science, is a defeatist attitude toward the origin of marriage by the heterosexual human species. They should not ridicule the sanctity of what straight couples hold near and dear to their hearts, of which was founded by their ancestry, for its original moral intentions. Lets be clear I feel homosexuality is an immoral and selfish perversion, but if that floats your boat, invent your own union.( My definition of selfish: because it defeats the purpose of sex for procreation). Eventhough, that is how I perceive it, it doesn't mean I want to take away their free will to choose their lifestyle practices. It just means what my original notion is, and that is invent and constitute their own civil union. Just do not call it marriage, because that humiliates Gods invention. Call it gay civil union, or whatever strikes your fancy!

I hope I minded my P's & Q's, or dotted my I's and crossed my T's. Because your mockery is boring and repetative. If you have nothing constructive to add to a discussion, then please save you childish school yard contempt. For I know you make these comments to infuriate and fustrate me, so that in your own mind you may bolster yourself. I perceive, for the infantile reason, that you can contrive an imagined sense of superiority. Go ahead and mock me if that is what your heart desires?! Just know that I feel no ill will, or fustration, for I feel peace and love for my fellow species. I am clear in the understanding that we all come from different backgrounds, yet we all feel and suffer emotionally, although diversely.

Rob,

Marriage was NOT meant for procreation. The human race was having zero problem with that effort before marriage. Marriage was designed for the aristocrat and monarch. It was called a "marriage contract" for a reason. Keep in mind that women were possessions and very little to no input on whom they married. Father's chose the husbands of their daughters and had to provide financial incentive for a potential husband to marry their daughter, ie the dowery. That's where the tradition of the brides father paying for the wedding came in. Marriage pre-dates Christianity and pre-dates Judeo tradition as well. Before those times, only the ultra rich and powerful could become married.

The only valid point that you can argue about marriage is that it is a religious intent. On this point, you have every right, which I support, to dislike gay marriage. You even have the ability and right to vocalize that. What you don't have the right to do is legislate your beliefs. I don't believe that you should be able to divorce. Should we start legislation based on my belief? I can speak low of divorce. I can say that I don't believe in it and that divorce is squarely against the bible. But do I have the right to legislate that others? No. I do not.

The other red herring is that gays were the downfall of the Roman empire. It wasn't until after the introduction, and I use that word kindly as it wasn't introduced but legislated and enforced with deadly brutality, of Christian rule that the empire fell apart. That and their over reaching governmental rule on too large a scale. I'm over simplifying here, of course, to make a point.

God did not invent marriage. And a "Holy Union" was nothing more than a church sanctified practice of saying to another man, "keep your hands off my property." The idea of love in a marriage was not a common practice until much recent human history.

The key points here:

1. Women were seen as property.

2. A woman's father had to provide financial incentive for a marriage contract. (cattle, money, sheep, land, etc)

3. A marriage was meant to tie powerful families together and was used for things such as peace treaties and combining kingdoms.

4. Women did not have a choice in their husband unless they could influence their father to make a different decision.

5. Humanity has zero problem populating the world with children marriage or not.

6. Religious belief has no place in the legislation of federal legal protections for families.

7. Churches do not have to participate in the marrying of a couple. But several churches, in fact, offer Holy Marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

8. You have the RIGHT to believe and vocalize your opinion.

9. You do NOT have the RIGHT to legislate based on your religious beliefs.

10. Over simplification and misinformation on the part of the religious right to indoctrinate their congregations has caused more death and bloodshed in the name of God than simple diseases like the flu or pneumonia or even cancer over the course of Christian history. (that is my opinion and there is no data to support that. I include the inquisition and the conversion of Northern Europe to Christianity.)

Marriage was not established by gay people, because it was instituted by hetrosexual men and women to symbolize their love and legacy for their descendants.

WRONG. It was NEVER about "love," Rob. Marriage is and has always been a contract which creates kinship where there previously was none, and protects the property and inheritance rights of the parties to that contract -- and any progeny who may be born to them, but progeny was never the reason for marriage.

Now for the gays with their inability to procreate without the assitence of donors and science, is a defeatist attitude toward the origin of marriage by the heterosexual human species.

WRONG AGAIN. If procreation had anything to do with marriage, people would have been required from the beginning of recorded history to provide proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to get married -- which has never been the case.

They should not ridicule the sanctity of what straight couples hold near and dear to their hearts, of which was founded by their ancestry, for its original moral intentions.

And people like you should not ridicule the sanctity of what same-sex couples hold near and dear to their hearts, which is to formalize their commitments to each other, with the accompanying legal recognition, rights, and responsibilities. Furthermore, allowing people of the same sex to marry is hardly immoral, since morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated. Same-sex marriage is no less moral than opposite-sex marriage; moreover, I would posit that divorce is far less moral and has degraded marriage far more than same-sex marriage could ever do, given the high divorce rate in this country. Finally, the government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from promoting your personal moral beliefs, or those of anyone else, without an accompanying secular purpose -- and as has been amply proven in the courts, there is no such purpose.

It just means what my original notion is, and that is invent and constitute their own civil union. Just do not call it marriage, because that humiliates Gods invention. Call it gay civil union, or whatever strikes your fancy!

First, you don't own the word "marriage". You -- like so many "good" bigots -- are confusing the civil contract that is and has always been "marriage" with the religious rite that is "holy matrimony". Second, God and the bible do not make our laws; we are and have always been a secular nation. Third, again like so many "good" bigots, you ASSume that I'm gay because I support equality.

I hope I minded my P's & Q's,

If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion in the first place -- "minding your Ps and Qs" means to mind your own business, and you certainly haven't done THAT.

dotted my I's and crossed my T's

While you have "dotted your Is and crossed your Ts" by making yourself so clear (which is what THAT means), you still have no grasp of semantics, spelling, punctuation, or grammar, which does not help your already pitiful credibility.

Because your mockery is boring and repetative.

Really? That's what I was thinking about your ignorant bigotry -- except that I can spell "repetitive".

If you have nothing constructive to add to a discussion, then please save you childish school yard contempt. For I know you make these comments to infuriate and fustrate me, so that in your own mind you may bolster yourself.

Yet you seem to feel that your pseudo-intellectual, homophobic rants ARE constructive, and if anyone has been childish, or seems to be coming from the schoolyard, it is you. I will save my contempt for anyone who deserves it -- including you, whether you like it or not. Moreover, I do not make these comments to "infuriate and frustrate" you (note that I did spell "frustrate" correctly, too), but to let you and your ilk know that, while you have the right to your beliefs and opinions, the First Amendment ensures that the rest of us do not have to live according to your erroneous beliefs. If you want to have an opinion, you'd better make sure that it's an informed one, because when you start posting your opinions on public discussion forums like this one (and trying to sound like an intellectual at the same time), other people have the right to post their opinions, as well as facts, holding you up to the ridicule you so richly deserve. I don't need to bolster myself by putting down insignificant trolls like you; you do such a fine job of that yourself.

I perceive, for the infantile reason, that you can contrive an imagined sense of superiority.

My superiority to the likes of you is not "imagined". I do not seek to deny rights to citizens of this country based on my own misinformed, made-up "facts," as you do. That alone would make me superior to you, but there are too many other reasons why that is so for me to list them here.

RobGC - I think same sex marriage is wrong, because it debases the actual purpose of MARRIAGE.

The actual purpose of MARRIAGE is about property and kinship rights, as well as commitment. Gays have the exact same interest in marriage as straight folks like me do.

I understand gay people are not entering into the union not with the intent to berate its sanctity.

Sanctity? The government doesn't legislate or regulate "sanctity". Not only have you just lost whatever argument you thought you were making (because your argument violates the 1st Amendment), but it sounds like you've confused the legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony". Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you.

Your cult and your sharia laws are completely irrelevant to marriage, but it sounds like you want the government to enforce the sharia laws of your bigoted and backwards cult rather than those of an enlightened, gay-friendly denomination like the Episcopal church.

ErinNJ, your narcissitic attitude of enacting dominion over persons, of which you have a presumsed sense of superiority, is cause for concern. I hope you don't own a gun, for I sense you are the on the verge of going into a conservative neighborhood or church, and angrily venting your annoyance on people you feel you have a lack of control over. Don't listen to those voices that pose a vain sense of hegemony, and get psychological assistence.

I proof read my last comment, and left those misspellings, just to gauge your reaction. And I have concluded, that you have a very disturbing sense toward demonizing persons, that threaten your supposed feeling of supremacy. Help is there if you need it, so please do not hesitate?!

ErinNJ, when I qouted,"did I mind my P's and Q's" was in hopes, that I posed a respectful contrary idealogy. But according to your intellectual disposition, I can see that is going to be a fruitless task. Although, I have to admit, I knew what the outcome was going to be. My true purpose was to endorse a belief that the majority of people in this country feel, and that same sex relations is an abomination. There is no reason for it other than lascivious sexual acts for self serving gratification, which is in similitude of pedophillia and forced rape. And I have personal experiences, that has caused the formulation of my ideals and beliefs, and it has nothing to do with BIGOTRY. You may draw conclusions from my last sentence, but I am going to disparage any notions you might concoct. It is conclusive you will never understand, so restrain yourself from forming conclusions. Peoples personal issues are not up for debate, especially by someone as nascissistic as you! I reiterate same sex tendacies is immoral, and defeats moral purposing. And if morality is subjective, then there are millions of prisoners, that would like to debate their moral cases.

RobGC - ErinNJ, your narcissitic attitude of enacting dominion over persons, of which you have a presumsed sense of superiority, is cause for concern. I hope you don't own a gun, for I sense you are the on the verge of going into a conservative neighborhood or church, and angrily venting your annoyance on people you feel you have a lack of control over. Don't listen to those voices that pose a vain sense of hegemony, and get psychological assistence.

I know! It's almost like she can see that you're a pompous asshat and a pretentious bigot.

My true purpose was to endorse a belief that the majority of people in this country feel, and that same sex relations is an abomination.

Just an FYI, dumb bigots like you are in the minority today. Most Americans support marriage equality and think that gays and straights deserve exactly the same legal rights.

Elderly bigots like you are a dying demographic.

Rob,

The last polls showed that over 50% of American's support gay marriage. So your assertion that "the majority of people in this country feel, and that same sex relations is an abomination," is wrong.

Also, "Abomination," as referred to in the Bible, was always aligned with acts of pagan ritual or the cursing of God's name, which would go back to paganism. Same sex relations have nothing to do with any religion. Although you seem to put a lot of energy into it, and thought, most gay people don't live their lives thinking about being gay. We have things like bills, grocery shopping, raising families, taking care of elderly family members, jobs, etc to worry about. Being gay is such a small part of who and what we are. It's people like you that make being gay such a big deal.

@rossj503, I want to thank you for your respecful attitude concerning your comments. You are a good man, and I have found you to be of good character. HAPPY NEW YEAR Sir...and may the coming year be a blessed one for you and your family.

I want to end by stating that I DO NOT codemn the gay person, because all people(myself included) struggle with their inner demons, and no one is without offense. I am only condemning the act, and that is just my perspective.

RobGC - I am only condemning the act, and that is just my perspective.

What "act" would that be? The act of signing a legal contract? The act of committing to the person you love?

What "act" would that be? The act of signing a legal contract? The act of committing to the person you love?

The "ACT" of committing the abominable sexual acts, that are self serving gratifications for the sexually depraved "persons". Which is deviant of its true moral purposing, and you narrow mindedly call that amorist. Then legislating the contract, thus compelling the sexually moral upstanding families of society to accept the unnatural sexually perverted.

Same sex attraction is theoretical, for there are many reasons for its existence, it is not a civil right. A Race is not a choice you can accept or deny, sexual perversion is. And subjecting our youth to forcibly accept sexual perversion is going to have social consequences, and if you don't believe it now you will sooner or later.

Rob, "abominable" is in the eye of the beholder. Just because YOU find homosexuality and homosexual behavior to be abominable, does not mean that everyone does. Furthermore, no one is "compelled" to "accept the unnatural sexually perverted" -- because "perverted" is also subjective, and because no one is being forced to accept anything. Gays do not give two @!$%#s about the acceptance of bigots like you; they just want equal treatment under the law -- and they are getting them, and will only continue to get them, since the courts are seeing it that way, too.

Same-sex attraction most certainly IS a civil right; you are obviously not familiar with Lawrence v. Texas. While "sexual perversion" may be a choice, sexual orientation is not, just as race is not. Moreover, the underlying arguments for and against same-sex marriage are the same as the ones for and against interracial marriage -- and you dumb bigots are using the same dumb arguments against it now as the dumb bigots did in the 1960s, and they are still just as dumb, and just as unsuccessful. No wonder you keep losing in the courts.

At some point in time, you are going to have to do some actual research, Rob; not that it will change your bigoted mind -- but at least you will know the facts.

ErinNJ, Your conjecture of subjectivity is laughable, and your argument of interjecting Lawrence v. Texas(consentual adult sodomy) is an imagined precedent for same-sex marriage. What people do in private has nothing to do with compelling public acceptance.

So save your bigotry contempt speech for advocates trying to unconstitutionlize moral foundations from our ancestry. Not that it is any of your narrow minded business, I have investigated unbiased scientific research. And they have concluded that same-sex attraction has to many variables to base it on a natural occurance, because it also has social implications.

Now pay close attention: Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil.

At some point in time, you are going to have to entertain the notion of spirituality and its social consequences. Not that it wil change your narrow mined idealogy, but at least maybe your understanding can be expanded, and thus the propensity to reject evil.

How is it "laughable," Rob? Who decides what is moral? Is premarital sex immoral? Is living together without being married immoral? Is contraception immoral? Some people believe they are; some don't -- so who is correct? THAT is what "subjective" means, Rob: you may find something immoral, while I do not, like homosexuality. Just because YOU say that it is "immoral" does not make it so. We do not live by YOUR so-called "morals," Rob; we each have our own moral code by which we live.

Furthermore, if you had bothered to read Lawrence v. Texas (or any of the court challenges to anti-gay laws like Prop H8 and DOMA, in which Lawrence has been found to be applicable), you would have found out that it was hardly a simple case about "consensual adult sodomy". The Supreme Court found that

...to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command...In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here...It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003)

So you see, every one of us has a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that includes the right to be homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever sexual orientation one happens to be, and to engage in those behaviors with consenting adults. The state/federal government has no interest or justification for intruding into one's personal and private life, as the ruling clearly states.

Not that it is any of your narrow minded business, I have investigated unbiased scientific research. And they have concluded that same-sex attraction has to many variables to base it on a natural occurance, because it also has social implications.

That is an outright lie, because if you HAD "investigated unbiased scientific research" that was credible, you would have found that same-sex attraction has been overwhelming found to be naturally-occurring, since it has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species besides humans. (While homophobia has only been found to occur in ONE species.)

Now pay close attention: Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil...At some point in time, you are going to have to entertain the notion of spirituality and its social consequences.

Now YOU pay close attention: just because you believe in "spirituality" does not make it true, either. It is simply YOUR belief; there is no factual evidence to support it.

at least maybe your understanding can be expanded, and thus the propensity to reject evil.

I HAVE rejected evil, Rob, which is why I completely and absolutely reject your narrow-minded, ignorant bigotry.

ErinNJ, I reject the fact that same sex couples are forcing youth into confusing situations. Go to this news report, and pay close attention to paragraphs 9,10, and 11. And tell me you do not feel compassion for these innocent young children subjugated to this emotional confusion?

Just because you find sexual deviancy and perversion to be subjective. Do you find the emotional stabilty of our youth to be subjective too? If you do, then you are in the minority with that subjective thinking.

Evenmore, many civilizations in history have met with a tragic ending, with the acceptance of your selfish narrow mnded subjective idealogy. Read and study your history more thouroghly, for it is intelligence to learn from the past. Furthermoe, we do not need to continually make the same mistakes, thus society with your frame of mnd weakens under its own debaucheries and immoral perversions. For they crumble from division., because when one group dictates acceptance, then others follow suite. Then the stronger and more healthy part of society that love and care for its youth, reject those that subjugate their offspring to perversions that cause emotional harm.

Truly, your comparison of Humans to Animals is comedic. Do we as humans fight off other suitors to hoard the female species? Thusly, there are so many many other examples that flaws your arguement for comparison, and one of the biggest is the aptitude for reasoning and intellectual advancement. Or have pigs began to fly, and are monkeys building skyscapers, and investing in the stock market for their retirement?

Reject me if you like?!, I reiterate the fact that I do not feel frustration from you comments and hold no ill will. For I know what thrives and what perishes with time. Good LucK....

Heres the news article I am refering to:

RobGC - The "ACT" of committing the abominable sexual acts, that are self serving gratifications for the sexually depraved "persons". Which is deviant of its true moral purposing, and you narrow mindedly call that amorist.

Ummmm......you are aware that gays and straights engage in pretty much the same sex acts, right?

Why do you think the government should be in your bedroom, and why do you want to restrict a sex ACT for gays which straights also engage in? Sounds like you're a huge bigot with a double standard, and you have an odd obsession with other people's sex lives.

Then legislating the contract, thus compelling the sexually moral upstanding families of society to accept the unnatural sexually perverted.

Sounds like you've confused marriage with sex, or you rather bizarrely think marriage is a license to have sex. This article and the legal issue is about the legal contract of marriage and the property and kinship rights that go with that contract. What you think of sex "ACTS" is irrelevant to this issue.

Just an FYI for clueless bigots like you........gays will have sex regardless of whether they're married, it's perfectly legal for them to do so, and your twisted morality and sharia laws are irrelevant to everyone but Christofascists like you.

Evenmore, many civilizations in history have met with a tragic ending, with the acceptance of your selfish narrow mnded subjective idealogy. Read and study your history more thouroghly, for it is intelligence to learn from the past.

Apparently YOU need to study history -- I would add "more thoroughly," but it's apparent that you have barely studied it at all, so you need to START reading history books. Same-sex marriages were legal in quite a few ancient civilizations, and our own Native Americans also performed them. Furthermore, same-sex marriage certainly did not lead to the downfall of any civilizations -- in fact, most of them crumbled AFTER they embraced Christianity or other forms of organized religion and outlawed same-sex marriage.

Truly, your comparison of Humans to Animals is comedic. Do we as humans fight off other suitors to hoard the female species?

Humans ARE animals, you clueless bigot. We are homo sapiens, and we share more than 90% of our DNA with apes. And yes, human males actually DO fight off other suitors for females.

Reject me if you like?!, I reiterate the fact that I do not feel frustration from you comments and hold no ill will. For I know what thrives and what perishes with time

You have proven that all you really "know" is what you've pulled out of the encyclopedia of your ass.

Rob,

You are a hispanic man, correct? Does that mean I should assume you are here illegally, that you work on a farm, you barely speak English, that you are draining our social services dry, or the million stereotypes of hispanic men? Don't you agree how foolish they are? You have the right to your opinions and feelings. But you are misguided on several points.

1. Early Civilizations did not crumble because of the interjection of same sex couples and recognition of those. What we find in history is that most of the devastation came through the hands of religious upheaval or through political turmoil derived from power controls and struggles. To say that it was due to homosexuality would be falso and stating so is to further a life and misconception.

2. What you call deviation is in fact a normal part of every culture, organism, and chain of life. The assumption that deviation is "bad" comes from religious and/or political controls set up to keep populations under control. However, in every other environment these deviations happen naturally to help the environment around it.

3. Humans are the only animal that takes issue with homosexuality. Animals will rape, kill, and steal, but they don't throw another member of their species out of the heard for being gay. Nor do they exact social violence on that animal. This seems to be a human only characteristic.

4. You say that you have no ill will towards gays or those that support us. But your language is hard, condemning, and at best damning. One of my close friends is as Right Wing Conservative Christians as they come! Yet, she and I are able to have a friendship with one another. She disagrees with homosexuality with every fiber of her being. She feels it's a sin and an offense to God. She doesn't believe children should be adopted by gays, etc etc etc. And yet, we have a friendship. The reason for it is simple. We both respect one another's right to an opinion and to belief. I do not use condescending terms with her and she does not with me. We are civil with one another. She believes that if she wants to enjoy the right to her religious belief and freedom she has to allow others the same right. Just as our friendship works. I give her the respect she deserves through recognizing her choice of religion and beliefs. She respects my choices and life as well. Your statements don't leave room for that. Your statements only leave room for once conclusion.

You must never have heard Gays calling straights Breeders.

Long ago, and not all that often.

Actually, I see a lot of gay couples now embracing the idea of raising children and many becoming great parents in the process. Times change.

I stil don't see them ever chiming on articles about straight people's marriages and making derisive comments.

I DO see that from the gay marriage and gay-in-general hater crowd, though. Kinda makes them look rather small a bigoted to anyone with a brain.

Troy,

In fact, "childfree" straights use the term "breeders" far more often than GLBT folk* in my observations.

Also, straights with children and/or grandchildren, me, for example, use "Breeders" to define train wrecks, like the Duggars, Full Quiver-ites, OctoMom and Kate8.

* you do know that Lesbians and Gays have kiddoes?

You need to get more.

The word "breeders" never really caught on. When it was used, it was not said with hatred towards anyone in particular but with a lot of irony and some sarcasm towards those who claimed that gays were less than human because they - the breeders - were somehow superior.

Oh, Stonepipe, if only that were true!! I clearly remember when I decided to be heterosexual. I was 15, and had held off choosing because I wanted to watch all the TV debates first. And am I ever glad I did, since a recent scientific survey by eminent scientists at a leading university PROVED that most homosexuals have two eyes, two ears and a full set of normal human appendages! And many of them suffer from frequent orgasms!! OMG, I know!! And to think that could have been my fate just makes me shudder.

Just:)- I knew I was hetro when Nancy Sinatra did "These Boots" in 1967???? Did not know what the hell to do, all I know is I wanted some of whatever the Hell it was.

crabs is the poster child for hire the illiterate... they are fun to watch... what a dink!

http://files.sharenator.com/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_we_got_a_bad_ass_over_here_meme_Badass_animals-s769x595-319384-580.png

crabs are you really so ignorant to think that laws will be passed to allow violating and marrying animals... get some damn professional help!

Crubs,

Really??? We're still doing this???

Why doesn't HETEROSEXUAL marriage lead to any of those things? Especially polygamy, seeing as that tends to come from patriarchal societies that are vehemently anti-gay and engaged in only in a heterosexual manner.

Why would changing the gender of one party in a contract lead to the repeal of the laws banning beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia...???

Have you ever heard of legal capacity for informed consent?

You comfort is not necessary for someone else to have achieved their civil rights!

Uh, Ramage? You do realize that Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional cities from a fairy tale, right?

@RWH' The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a civil right in the Loving v. Virginia decision.

Shall we guess what your views of interracial marriage are?

Equal protection of the law is the other relevant civil right, as much as bigots like rwhsr56 don't like it.

rwhsr56

right wing hoser, age 56?

Usually a number after a name is the year of birth. This is because we change our age each year. It's also because we often forget our own age or have to think about it. It's not the first number to come to mind when creating a user name. But, the year of birth is.

Hi Skrekk: If SCOTUS upholds DOMA and rules that it is not a violation of civil rights will you accept their decision? After all they are the Messiahs of the constitution.

Just thought I'd throw that at you, we both know that Turncoat Roberts will be the deciding vote to scrap DOMA, just as he did to uphold OBAMACARE. He wants to cement his legacy more than he wants to do the will or good of the people. After all, if your name isn't printed in high school history or civics books your time on the Court is wasted, good or bad.

imnotlostHi Skrekk: If SCOTUS upholds DOMA and rules that it is not a violation of civil rights will you accept their decision?

Will pigs fly? I rather doubt SCOTUS will get DOMA wrong since it's a rather blatant violation of equal protection as well as a violation of state's rights, but it could happen given that SCOTUS got Plessy v Ferguson wrong.

Just thought I'd throw that at you, we both know that Turncoat Roberts will be the deciding vote to scrap DOMA, just as he did to uphold OBAMACARE.

I'm not sure where you learned to count but the vote to overturn DOMA is 5-4 even without Roberts.

Just an FYI, Kennedy wrote the two key gay rights precedents. That means you bigots have already lost the argument.

Yeah, there's no way DOMA will be found constitutional given its blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Skrekk:

I'm not sure where you learned to count but the vote to overturn DOMA is 5-4 even without Roberts.

There are nine members of SCOTUS; if Turncoat Roberts had refrained or recused himself the vote could not possibly have been 5-4 as you said. Also, why did the media have such a frenzy (happily I might add) if he hadn't been the deciding vote. CNN got it wrong as I recall because of there greed to be first, but when the smoke cleared it happened just the way I said previously. There are a hundred websites at least that back me up. If you would just google it you will see. I did and here's the first one that came up.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS354US354&q=which+justices+voted+yes+on+obamacare

That's why many people who study these things concluded that Roberts is playing his prestige against how he really feels, and I agree, so tell your precious child (children) to be patient, Roberts will make it all right come June.

imnotlost - There are nine members of SCOTUS; if Turncoat Roberts had refrained or recused himself the vote could not possibly have been 5-4 as you said.

I'm talking about DOMA. What are you talking about?

Without a doubt the vote count to overturn DOMA is at least 5-4, more likely 6-3.

@shrek

Will pigs fly?

it is mostly about ignorant, haters!

You obviously didn't read the article....

Bob-2711464 - There you go haters.... It's not all about religion.

Let's see.......a really ignorant blog post on a Presbyterian web site with lots of bible babble, and you claim that it's not all about religion?

There simply is no secular reason to deny gays access to the exact same legal contract straight couples use, nor is there any legitimate reason for the government to discriminate on the basis of the race or gender of one's spouse. That's why you bigoted nutballs have been consistently losing in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

Really skreek?

I didn't read any "bible babble" Until the last paragraph. The ENTIRE article is statistics and experts giving their opinions, Even a HOMOSEXUAL professor... What part of bible babble is that?

Bob, those statistics are over 2 decades old and were gathered in very questionable ways. It's garbage talk.

Bob-2711464

The biggest failure of that article (and, yes, I read it all) is in it's focus and use of the procreative aspect of heterosexual marriage which completely ignore the reality of the millions of heterosexual marriages which do not produce children, either by circumstance or choice.

The rest is full of illogical appeals to authority (Rev Jesse Jackson quotes/opinions of select psychologists) and historical imperative ("it's always been this way"...which is a complete falsehood in itself by the way).

The article is basically a hodgepodge of religious and quasi-scientific rationales aimed at finding reasons to be against same-sex marriage. None of it holds water in the final analysis, primarily because the premises are either pure conjecture or patently and provably untrue or simply tenets of faith, with no demonstrable underpinnings of fact.

Marriage is simply a legal contract between consenting adults which affords them specific rights and obligations. It is a binding commitment. Should a couple want to make that legal commitment sacred in the eyes of their religion, then they opt for a holy matrimony...a completely different matter. But in terms of the legal contract aspect, denying a secular marriage contract to same-sex couples is definitely denying a civil right for no compelling reason on the part of the state. The attempts to present potential "harm" to society by same-sex marriage has failed in every case brought before the courts so far.

Culheath: That is the point I have made many times.

What we should have is contractual unions. The government should not be involved with marriage at all, the rights they seek has nothing to do with acceptance, it is a cohabitation issue. In honesty it can be claimed by a plethora of personal living arrangements. It would be best sorted out by attorneys at law schooled in what can be construed as an acceptable arrangement in society. P.S. There is more involved than just gay rights when there is open ended definition of bonding agreements. Lots of people would favor benefits given to life partners or cohabitation other. If it is not about creation or sex it is open to interpretation as to who can be unionized.

bob-2476682 - What we should have is contractual unions.

Ummmmmmm........that's exactly what marriage is.

The government should not be involved with marriage at all, the rights they seek has nothing to do with acceptance, it is a cohabitation issue.

Wrong. It's a property rights and legal kinship issue. No one needs marriage to cohabitate, nor is cohabitation required for marriage.

Marriage for thousands of years is about a mother and father. If you want different types of unions, it needs to be written out what is the acceptable norm? If it is about rights a contract and power of attorney should suffice without the label of marriage. Marriage should not be done to promote a lifestyle choice. There are loopholes present when definition of marriage is critiqued. Government license maybe, government marriages no, let us be rid of the term. P.S. Skrekk: Why don't you read what I wrote a few times so you might comprehend the concept behind the statement? I offer compromise, you do not.

Marriage for thousands of years is about a mother and father.

WRONG. It has always been a contract to establish kinship where there previously was none. Whether children came from it was -- and still is -- irrelevant. In fact, here's a newsflash for you: marriage is not necessary for procreation to occur; people have been producing children without being married for thousands of years.

If it is about rights a contract and power of attorney should suffice without the label of marriage.

That is already what marriage is -- and you don't own the word "marriage". BTW, contracts and powers of attorney can be and are successfully challenged all the time.

Marriage should not be done to promote a lifestyle choice.

So it shouldn't be done to promote the heterosexual "lifestyle choice," either. BTW, when did you "choose" to be heterosexual? And exactly what IS a homosexual or heterosexual "lifestyle choice"?

Government license maybe, government marriages no, let us be rid of the term.

Obviously you confuse the civil contract that is marriage with the religious rite that is holy matrimony. One is legal and recognized; the other is not.

bob-2476682 - I offer compromise, you do not.

Why should anyone compromise on civil rights? You'd have to be a complete idiot to do that. That'd be like a black person agreeing to sit at the back of the bus, just so as to not offend a dumb bigot like yourself.

But more to the point, it's you dumb bigots who have been unwilling to compromise. At one time about 20 years ago there might have been a chance for you bigoted nutballs to institute a 2nd-class status for gays using a Jim Crow law like civil unions. But your hatred of gays and your desire for Christofascism and straight supremacy were so important to your feeble psychology that in the bigoted states of the south you banned both marriage and civil unions for gays. That's something the 14th Amendment wouldn't tolerate for long.

You nutballs are the ones who refused to compromise, and you've shot yourselves in the foot.

To put it another way, you have an agenda. I made it a point to bring up what a definition of family is and that many types of unions can and will challenge the court. I did not attack the acts one participates in only addressed legalities involved by redefining marriage other than a man and women, husband and wife, father and mother. I am not surprised by your vicious attacks do to the fact you do not hold a strong position in regards to facts. Calling me names, fabricating scenarios to support your ideas of what is right and wrong. I did not become the judge, you have. P.S. Almost all marriages in America were recorded in church, whether you were a believer or not. Common law marriages were not accepted by all. I seriously believe you would favor the concept of the Oneida community. Which by the way is an example of how John Noyes could challenge the court. Skrekk: where were you during the civil rights movement?

So you guys agree and support Martin Luther's definition of marriage as civil unions? There is the coucil Trent that comes into play in most western countries. However, I would not want to say anything that would provoke your ire.

bob-2476682 - To put it another way, you have an agenda.

Correct.....I think my gay daughter should have the exact same legal rights as her straight father, her straight mother, and her straight sisters.

Call me crazy, but I think the 14th Amendment means exactly what it says about equal protection of the law. You on the other hand want special rights and privileges, and want the government to treat some Americans as 2nd-class citizens. You're a bigot, no different from the racists in the Jim Crow south.

Almost all marriages in America were recorded in church, whether you were a believer or not.

What churches do is irrelevant to this discussion. Only the state controls your marital status, and it simply doesn't give a crap what your bizarre cult does. Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic if you need further explanation.

What is it that you don't understand about the implications of redefining marriage? I am not talking history nor do I think you do either. A reasonable person might realize I have only stated what may happen if marriage is redefined. There is nothing anyone could say, even the truth; that could sway your defense of a sexual lifestyle. P.S. It is funny you of all people use the phrase straight. What does that mean in your family?

bob-2476682 - What is it that you don't understand about the implications of redefining marriage?

Sounds like the same thing happened when mixed-race couples were allowed to drive and women were allowed to vote, we became truer to the principles of our constitution.

In other words, dumb bigots like you are unable to deal with the implications of equal protection of the law. I suggest you learn to deal with it since you're on the losing side of history and the courts are already against you.

Wow! I can't believe they allow mixed couples to drive. Ignore the issues; the law is able to be applied to many things now, but having a closed mind is your right. That has been demonstrated over and over again by the same old response to those who not agree with your ideals. These same courts are the ones who made all those laws you rail against. Who is on the winning side is open to conjecture, but also in your mind all things support your beliefs. I would call that being delusional. I on the other hand, I am in the majority worldwide.

bob-2476682 - These same courts are the ones who made all those laws you rail against.

No, actually it was bigoted legislatures or a bigoted public which enacted those Jim Crow laws. No surprise that most of those Jim Crow laws are in the old confederate states, as they've never believed in equal protection of the law.

The courts are always the ones which have defended the constitutional rights of individuals. I realize that's very frustrating for people like you who want special rights for themselves while treating other people as 2nd-class citizens. It really must burn your britches to see all the rulings against bigots like you since 2003, and to realize that you're about to have another 1967 moment when you dumb bigots lost on a very similar issue.

What pray tell in 1967 had to do homosexual endeavors? Confederate states of 140 years ago did what to gays? Please stay in the present and keep your belligerent attitude toward the bigoted public to a minimum. I do not put all my faith in the US justice system, because sometimes it is a flawed system as is your argument citing things that happened in antiquity.

bob-2476682 - I do not put all my faith in the US justice system, because sometimes it is a flawed system as is your argument citing things that happened in antiquity.

I'd imagine not, since they usually rule against greedy bigots and Christofascists like yourself.

Maybe you should move to Iran or Afghanistan? They seem to share your values better.

Christo? The guy who likes to wrap up everything in fabric? No need to move they are here already in numbers great enough to control local government; Beverly Hills, Florida. Greedy bigot? Wow! Another nonsensical term like mixed couples driving. I believe nonsensical best describes the arguments you possess when homosexual wants are concerned.

bob-2476682 - Greedy bigot?

You do appear to be the archetype, a dumb bigot who wants special rights and privileges for himself which he'd like to deny to the people he hates.

You're just like the racists of the Jim Crow south.

absolutely!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL you just said same-sex marriage should be a human right!!! That is soooo wrong it's not even funny..... Since when has marriage been a human right? People, yes even straight, have never been able to marry somebody simple because they loved them. Marriage, even for straight people is NOT and has NEVER been a human right. When I was born I was NOT given the right to Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to get married.

we would explain it to you bobbie... but there will never be enough time for you to comprehend it... bye, bye

I'm sorry, I see you were trying to make a point but I couldn't get to it with all the BS you are spewing. Last I checked, as a straight person, if I am of consenting age and want to get married legally I can. That is my right. Should be the same for gays as well. I can't even think of anything where I would not be allowed to marry someone. Now if I was a felon, my right to vote can be taken away but I would still be able to get married.

TheJamyC - It shouldn't of had to be voted on in the first place

That's exactly my reaction too, but I can't blame anyone for seeking their civil rights by any means necessary.

Bob

This is a secular society (which allows freedom of religion) and WE get to decide on what is a human right. Do you dig the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" that our founders liked so well?

I agree skrekk. I am just saying they shouldn't have to fight in the first place.

@TheJamyC:

You must not have thought very hard.... The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed........

Personally I think Iowa and Massachusetts did it the right way through the courts, but I'm very happy to see so many states coming around and treating people equally either through the legislature or through referenda. The people of Maine deserve both the kudos and the wedding-related income.

are there not states that still allow young teens to marry?

Bob- That is why I said legally. Whatever restrictions are there for straights should be the same for gays. Just like equal pay in the workplace. Not a hard concept there buddy.

@Jamy

You said marriage was a civil-right. Last I checked there are no rights in existences where you can express them, but at the same time conduct them illegal. I think it's crazy that people like you even compere the fight for same-sex marriage to the battle for civil rights, and honestly it's disrespectful. As Rev. Jesse Jackson has said “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”

Buddy

Bob-2711464 - You said marriage was a civil-right.

Actually it's the US supreme court which has said marriage is a basic civil right.

The other relevant civil right is called "equal protection of the law". You can no more grant marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples while denying them to same-sex couples than you can grant drivers licenses to right-handed persons while denying them to left-handed persons.

The state simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse.

Just because it's not about their right to vote does not mean it's not a civil rights issue. By taking away their rights to marry and have the same benefits as straight couples, you may as well be taking away their right to vote because no matter who they vote for, their own rights are being violated.

Bob-2711464 - As Rev. Jesse Jackson has said “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”

Ummmmm..........Jesse Jackson fully supports marriage equality, as does the NAACP. The NAACP says that marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time.

It's only clueless bigots like you who don't understand that the exact same legal issues are involved.

Loving v virginia final verdict. Written in plain as day black ink. Marriage is a fundamental human right.

YouCan'tHandleTheTruth because you don't know the truth. Marriage equality concerns only adults. Try to discuss the issue as an adult instead of relying on the same tired, old illogical arguments that willfully ignorant bigots always use.

Bob,

Here you go, this should explain it...

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, ask yourselves this...

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?

Or, in easier terms...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

1. I am not gay

2. Sick of right wing haters like you

3. What a bitchy post... you top the list... shove your pathetic attitude where the sun don't shine... then buzz off!

And I've been around Christofascist most of my life and they the most hateful, mean spirited people there are.

right Stephen , despite Christian institutions are now and have been historically the foundation of charity and generosity where ever they exist. See , this is whats so repugnant about the left - they preach and prostilitise tolerence and civility but in reality these bigots are the most uncivil, INTOLERANT people on the face of the earth

Just because they take peoples money and give it to other people, they think they can tell people how to act and yeah, some of the most judgmental people I have ever known.

then you must know very few. Most are generous to a fault , truely altruistic and selfless and jst look at the trap jamy just got himself caught in- "they take peoples money and give it to other people" the very foundation of obamas redistribution plans - betcha can guess who little jamy voted for - hypocrit!

Stephen is absolutely right!!!

Patriotic Girl-3895304 - I have been around gay people for so many years and they are some of the most mean spirited people I know.

Given your ignorant hate-filled rant up thread, I'm not surprised gay folks would find you irritating.

stephen - when leftward starts agreeing with you - its time to rethink your position

PC- You have no idea who I voted for. Gay rights are not even in the same boat as redistribution of wealth. For your information I have never been on assistance and do not plan too. I do not condemn those who are but our country needs new regulations regarding welfare and other assistance programs. I have my own mind and do not need either side of the political parties telling me how to think or spend my money. I am so sick of liberal this and right wingers that. We get so friggen caught up in politics that we forget the reason we have a government in the first place.

Patriotic Girl

It baffles me that so many of you conservatives that express such hatred toward your fellow Americans like to choose such "patriotic" screen names for yourselves. Judging from your comments, "patriotic" is not an adjective that I would apply to you.

Why is it that the "Godless liberals" are so much more likely to stand up for civil rights and human rights that the Christian right?

Why is it that you hate non-believers and tolerate the likes of Reverend Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Why is it that so many Christians, especially your brand of Christian, is so much more interested in the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) while you completely ignore the message of the Sermon on the Mount? In case you forgot, that's the part of the Bible in which Jesus talks about how to treat others.

by your remarks its pretty obvious how you lean , jamy. but yes its an asumption - doesnt change the fact that you contradicted yourself. Like most libs - your selective with your outrage and disapproval - "ok for me but not for you" Your "mind of your own " sounds pretty much the liberal status quo

PC is like most teatard haters... one big blanket of judgement, misassumptions and hating thrown on anyone with an opinion from the left.

and they cannot figure out why they just lost an election and will probably lose in 2014 and 2016 as well!

how have I "mis assumed" you , bigot? Ive thrown no hate in anything Ive posted on here - all Im doing is shinning light on the hypocrisy and hateful bigotry of you liberals

PC- It is you making the assumption that I am a liberal. And if you think liberals say they have their own mind then maybe I am one. When it comes to rights I am not one to back down from my stance. Rights, in my own opinion are not debatable. So yes, I am condemning you or anyone else that is against gay rights. I am not saying you can not comment because you have free speech just like me. And I did not contradict myself. I simply stated that many religious charitable organizations take money from one person to give to another but they expect you to convert their belief system. I also said I am not a democrat or a republican. So I really don't see where you say I contradicted myself.

just for fun , jamy - go back and read my posts - there isnt ANYTHING anti gay in anything Ive posted. All my comments are directed at all the hateful bigoted liberal hypocrisy posted here. As far as rights - I dont give a fig about whether or not gays can marry - live and let live as far as Im concered. As far as your own mind? perhaps - but as far as this vine - your just right along with the liberal herd.

PC- I went back and read your posts. You got me on the fact you haven't said anything about gay rights. All I see is you bashing anyone you think is a liberal. I think you favor the term liberal bigot. Correct me if I am mistaken. Now that I think about it, why are you even commenting on this article if you have absolutely nothing to say about gay rights whether you are for or against? Is it safe to assume that you are yet another internet troll coming to us from his mother's basement because you have no life? And before you can comment back, I work nights and just happened to see this article and started commenting on it because it had to do with my home state. Unfortunately, I keep getting ready to sign out when I see I have to defend another post that shouldn't need defending. But just for fun I read all your comments on this thread. Safe to say my fun and your fun are not the same. :)

actually Ive only called one - leftward a liberal bigot. I h=just did give my opinion on it - Im live and let live -if a states CITIZENS - not a liberal judge ,vote in for gay marriage then so be it. And I have the attic apt in my mommys house -so there. I too work nights and it happens to be a slow one - this little sword fight isnt really on a subject that holds my interest. Guilty as charged though - I despise sanctimonous liberals - they preach tolerence when their anything but - In my book that makes then hypocrits of the worst order - see we can have a civil exchange - oops wait - your judging me on not having a life ...sniff

PC- I am not judging you on not having a life. I made an observation based on the comments you are making that you had me go back and re-read. I think civil exchange went out the window 30 minutes ago there bud...

PC/NOT - Im live and let live -if a states CITIZENS - not a liberal judge ,vote in for gay marriage then so be it.

How do you feel about mixed-race marriage? Should that also be determined by each state?

being a mullato - I have a nothing but support for mixed marriges

PC/NOT - being a mullato - I have a nothing but support for mixed marriges

That's one way to avoid answering a direct question. So I'll ask again since you seem to be a believer in the rights of states to deny the basic civil rights of their citizens......should mixed-race marriage be left up to the states as it was before 1967?

If not, why not?

thats one way to cloud a debate - twist off subject and try to bait your opponant. Sorry sonny - you have to get up a bit earlier. We arent talking about mixed marriages - nice try though

PC is apparently trying to set a record for the biggest jerkwad for the evening!

PC/NOT - We arent talking about mixed marriages - nice try though

Well, you're the one who said it was OK for a state to selectively deny the civil rights of its citizens.

Sounds like you're afraid to answer the question, given that the answer will awkwardly reveal your bigotry.

You seem to be a typical "states rights" neoconfederate.

you really are thick - what I said is that up till the last election - gay marrige was never brought up to a vote by the CITIZENS of a given state - it was appointed by some liberal judge - up till the last election where what was it 3 states voted for it - it had ALWAYS been overturned on referendum(that means it was put to a vote by the CITIZENS) It was overturned in liberal mass., liberal california, liberal oregon - so shrek - thats a pretty good indicator that the CITIZENS of those states DIDNT WANT IT. And yes I am states rights - although hardley a confederate - you seem like a typical socialist leaning dunce

PC,

You blew it.

shrekk offered a direct parallel question and you refused to answer it.

Your suggestion that a citizenry should have the last say over a judge is basically calling for mob rule. The rights enumerated in the US Constitution are specially set up to protect the individual or minority from the force of the majority and are expressly protected from being "voted on".

no son - not mob rule - its actually called democracy - sometimes its a subtle diffrence but its a diffrence just the same - I would refer you back to your 5th grade civics

Sorry PC, but it is you who needs the refresher.

This is a republic which uses representative democracy rather than direct democracy. It serves as a hedge against the all too frequent stupidity and prejudices of the majority who all too frequently act as a mob when they are upset or afraid of a novel situation.

blah blah blah - your wrong AGAIN - putting something to a vote isnt mob rule

It is when it's someone's constitutionally guaranteed civil right...and according to the SCOTUS secular marriage is a right, not a privilege...ergo, it's access to any citizen cannot be voted upon...son.

.. thats a pretty good indicator that the CITIZENS of those states DIDNT WANT IT.

Hmm .. by your standard, the southern states could have voted to deny blacks their equal rights in the 1960's and the rest of the country should have allowed it. I'm sure that some of those bible belt states would vote to outlaw atheism, if given a chance. But, civil rights are not up for approval.

I don't think PC even understands why we have a bill of rights, a constitution or a judiciary to protect those rights. Either that or like most bigoted southerners he doesn't really think there should be a bill of rights.

What he wants is the tyranny of the majority, an ochlocracy. The founding fathers specifically opposed what PC wants.

I don't think PC actually wants the tyranny of the majority. When it comes to a state that decides to restrict religious freedoms or the 2nd amendment, you'll see an individual like that fight tooth and nail to protect it even if the state or the majority in the state decides to restrict it. But, when it comes to such things as gay marriage, it's suddenly a "States Rights" issue or a "Democracy" issue. Most people are like this though. People talk about freedoms or various rights but you will be hard pressed to find an individual who will defend such rights when they disagree with the behavior that right allows. Then, it's suddenly the states right to deny such rights to the individual.

Our founding fathers also didn't consider equal rights for women and blacks. But, we've got them.

For their day, the founding fathers were, on the whole, quite liberal. I have a feeling that, were they alive today, they'd fully support equal rights for gays.

YouCan'tHandleTheTruth2

I don't think our founding fathers wanted to consider homo sex, teabagging and the pedophilia associated etc.

Actually, the founding fathers didn't discuss sex at all in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They did, however, discuss equality, along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quit standing in the way of what the founding fathers wanted.

PC,

You're embarrassing yourself. You should really just answer Skrekk's question, how we ALL know you would, and own up to the hypocrisy and prejudiced inherent in the contradiction between that answer and your stance on gay rights.

And if Culheath is wrong, and you're right, than how come we DIDN'T leave desegregation up to a popular, state wide vote???

Marriage is a choice, not a right. A minority cannot be defined by sexual practices, if it is were in big trouble. I will say it again the ACT itself defines label. Argue the truth all you want, the outcome will remain. It is what you do that defines you. Lawyer, Banker, Indian Chief, "Homosexual"?

bob

Marriage is a contract concerning rights. There is actually no requirement that sex is part of that agreement, whether that sex is homosexual or heterosexual. The sex part is private and involves only the married couple. The public part of marriage is the rights under the law granted to that married couple.

It is what you think and say that defines you ..... narrow-minded, bigot, blowhard, homophobe

How you change what I said to fit your demented views. 1) Minorities; 2) no mention of intercourse, 3) civil unions not marriage is my position. I responded to the fallacy of special privilege for deviation from normalcy. Something I am sure you have no concept or acceptance of.

bob

None of us are "normal" in every way. But most of us accept differences as just that, differences. You choose to pick out one of those differences as a target for hate, insults and unfair treatment.

You choose to focus on "sexual practices" when you decide not to accept homosexual people as minorities; I choose to encourage this society to accept them as adult Americans and to grant them the marriage rights extended to other adult Americans.

I reiterate in the most strenuous terms available that carnal activity and debauchery are not rights and do not qualify as a minority status in any shape or form. P.S. I have not hated, insulted or been unfair as you imply. It is you who try to validate yourself by vilifying me.

bob-2476682 - I reiterate in the most strenuous terms available that carnal activity and debauchery are not rights and do not qualify as a minority status in any shape or form.

Then you're either a complete idiot or you're unfamiliar with Lawrence v Texas. Your silly obsession with sex is irrelevant to this discussion in more ways than one.

It also sounds like you've confused the legal contract of marriage with sex. The state doesn't ask about your sex life prior to granting a marriage license, nor does it care. It simply isn't relevant.

Just an FYI, gays are already having all kinds of sex without marriage and all of is perfectly legal......just like it is for straight folks.

bob

You accuse people of "debauchery" and then claim you have not insulted those people? You are not only insulting, you are irrational.

Try to focus on the fact that the marriage equality they seek concerns who they will share property with, and who will inherit that property if they die without a will, who they will depend upon for care when they need it, who is allowed to make medical decisions for them and other legal rights granted to other married couples.

When you deny rights to some citizens when they have not committed a felony or otherwise acted in a way to cause loss of rights, you are unfair. Period.

Minority status was the category that was addressed, it is not my problem with the gay sex it is your conscious that cannot disseminate the information. I have stated my support for civil unions if definitions are met. I know what your intent is and I disagree. This is not acceptable to you or the others in your coalition.

don: look up words before you say an accurate descriptive phrase is an insult. Power of attorney is sufficient for the articles you have listed.

Power of attorney is not good enough. Civil union is not good enough. These people are citizens and deserve the same marriage rights as other citizens.

I don't care about your argument about "minority status". "Minority status" is a distraction without any substance. I am completely willing to include them in the majority. You are not. Why not? Only because you are a homophobe.

bob-2476682 - Minority status was the category that was addressed, it is not my problem with the gay sex it is your conscious that cannot disseminate the information.

What is "minority status"? That has no meaning in the law whatsoever.

Do you mean suspect class? If so, sexual orientation is increasingly being treated as a suspect class by the courts precisely because of dumb bigots like you who have amply demonstrated your irrational anti-gay bias.

And even worse for you, gender is already a suspect class......that means the government can't discriminate based on the relative gender of your spouse.

I have stated my support for civil unions if definitions are met.

Great! Then you bigots can use civil unions, and us normal people can use marriage.

I see I have won the argument when all you have left is insults. I did not bring the term into discussion, you did. I will not address who, because some things are self evident as are desriptions related to title.

bob

You fail to understand the fallacy in your own thinking. You would like to define a minority, then complain that the group you defined does not qualify for minority status based on the characteristic you used to define them as a minority. That way of thinking is irrational. You cannot "win" any argument based on such illogical circular reasoning.

You are engaging in what is known as mental masturbation ..... you'r just playing with yourself.

bob,

This doesn't have to do with minority status. What it is in discrimination based on gender. The only difference between Hetero marriage and SSM is the gender of one party.

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I do not believe ones sex is the issue. It is a principle that is being tested by the assumption that what is good for some is good for all. It leaves the backdoor open for all types and practices to challenge the law under those same amendments you stand behind. Federal law has not addressed all issues independently. That means other types of non-permissible contractual unions cannot be denied on any grounds as they are individuals. I gave a example what may be allowed under the change in marriage definition "Oneida Community". P.S. that amendment is arbitrarily ignored in many instances as are most amendments in the constitution. The Mayflower Pact founded this country.

P.S.S. don: how many times are you going to twist what is written thinking that will prove your point? Minority is not admitted by me I say they are not, many ways, many times, and with fervor. Your mind stays on the sexual aspects of everything including your pathetic insults.

I do not believe ones sex is the issue.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what the issue is -- the relative genders of the two people who want to marry.

It is a principle that is being tested by the assumption that what is good for some is good for all. It leaves the backdoor open for all types and practices to challenge the law under those same amendments you stand behind.

WRONG. It is the principle that ALL taxpaying, law-abiding citizens are entitled to be treated equally, as specified in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, no "backdoor" is being left open for any other "types and practices to challenge the law," because marriage would still involve two consenting adults. You obviously have no clue about what "legal consent" means; no wonder you bigots keep losing in the courts.

The Mayflower Pact founded this country.

WRONG. The Declaration of Independence founded this country; and the Constitution governs it. The Mayflower Compact was a governing document only for the settlers of the Plymouth colony. The Mayflower Compact did not define or limit the functions of government, as the Constitution explicitly does.

Look, bob. You are being totally ridiculous. When you use terms like "debauchery" in a feeble attempt to make your argument, then accuse me of introducing the sexual aspects you are being irrational, absurd, illogical and untruthful. I suggested that you take sex acts out of the discussion altogether, to consider only these peoples' rights as adults. My focus was never on sexual behavior. You, however, consider homosexual people to be abnormal, debaucherous human beings. How can you, after all of your absurd comments accuse me of "twisting" what is written?

don: The word means sensual, did you even look it up or is your knowledge so vast that all meanings are as you perceive them to be?

Erin: Why? Why does it only involve two, if there is freedom for some but not all? Citizens is plural and why should a group which wants multiple marriages between individuals be denied because you oppose them on MORAL grounds? That is funny.

P.S. don: I have not mentioned sex acts, so there you go again with that twisting.

Bob, where did I say that I oppose multiple marriage, or that I oppose it on "moral" grounds? However, our current laws restrict marriage to two people; as far as the reasons why, look up Reynolds v. US.

Marriage redefined is the implication. I am glad you finally understand.

bob

Quit acting superior. I know that debauchery connotes an extreme obsession with sensuality or sex. That is why I say that you are focussing on that single aspect of a same sex relationship and that you are wrong. Marriage is a legal adult relationship and these people deserve marriage equality whether or not they even like sex, whether or not they are celibate.

Face it, bob. You would deny marriage equality because you do not like what they may be doing behind closed doors, and what they do behind closed doors is none of your business.

Bob, like so many "good" bigots, confuses sex with marriage.

Maybe if you bigots stopped opposing the civil rights of gays it would no longer be an issue, and thus no longer in the news?

well shrek - fact is - the gays could have had a legally recognized union 40 years ago- this fight is about semantics - being able to call it marriage and forcing those who dont approve of it to recognize it as such - see?

PC/NOT - this fight is about semantics - being able to call it marriage and forcing those who dont approve of it to recognize it as such - see?

Actually the fight is about equal treatment under the law for all Americans. You dumb bigots don't need to approve, just like some Mormons and Southern Baptists still don't recognize or approve of mixed-race marriage.

Seriously, no one seeks the approval of a dumb bigot.

no one seeks the approval of dumb bigots? What do you cll this little liberal circle jerk your having here this morning?

PC/NOT - no one seeks the approval of dumb bigots?

You're the nutball who claimed that bigots like you are being forced to "approve of" gay marriage.

Just an FYI, you're still free to be a dumb bigot and you don't need to "approve of" anyone's marriage but your own. And I can pretty much guarantee that no one will seek your approval.

Ive never been forced to approve or disapprove of anything - least of all from public preesure from the liberal bigots - if it wasnt approval your trying to push on evryone who doesnt agree with you - you wouldnt be on this vine calling others names , you dunce . Try again

When your dog becomes an adult and can vocally and freely agree to it, then I say, go for it.

Then again, Your dog probably has more taste and would turn you down, since they probably get to hump your leg anyway.

lol @ the hypocrisy coming from this man^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, BOB. You don't seem to understand satire either.

You need some time with a therapist...and soon.

And civil contracts can be changed or redefined at any point in time according to the civil authority. Get a clue.